If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Intel Drops Mode-Setting Rework Patch Bomb

07-03-2012, 12:50 PM

Phoronix: Intel Drops Mode-Setting Rework Patch Bomb

Daniel Vetter of Intel published a massive "patch bomb" of 43 patches to the Intel open-source Linux graphics driver development list as they prepare to re-work mode-setting within their DRM/KMS driver...

Comment

We're working on it We all desperately want to get there too...there's just an awful lot of work required to pull it off. We should have 3.1 fairly soon...then the next big feature is Geometry Shaders. Once those are done, we'll basically hit 3.3. Then, onwards and upwards...

If people are interested in helping out, one thing that would be extremely useful is adding test cases for Geometry Shaders (3.2) or even Hull and Domain Shaders (4.0) to Piglit, the open source OpenGL validation suite. Tests can be developed using the binary blob drivers, without waiting for us to implement the functionality. Writing tests requires some GL programming knowledge, and reading of the specs, but doesn't require a deep knowledge of Mesa internals, compilers, or the workings of GPU hardware. It's not particularly glamorous, but is extremely useful - writing tests is really the only way to know that our implementation actually works like it's supposed to. Right now, Piglit doesn't have any GL 3.2+ tests, so for every new feature, we're having to develop the driver -and- the test suite from scratch, which can be rather time consuming. Implementing these tests would also be a considerable help to the Radeon and Nouveau developers.

Comment

I'm going to support them so my next laptop will by IB based I really like the idea of computer where everything runs out of the box because every driver is integrated in the kernel.

My next laptop will be Ivy Bridge (or possibly Haswell) based too.
I also like the idea of every driver is integrated in the kernel with no binary blobs and all devices working out-of-the-box.

But then there are other things I would like.
The microarchitecture is closed. The UltraSPARC T1 and T2 microarchitecture is open source under the OpenSPARC project. With Intel (or AMD) that is unfortunately not the case.

The x86 instruction set architecture is not open. Only AMD and Via have a license, I think Intel refuse to provide anyone a license.
I want anyone to be able to compete.

I like Intel, but I x86 and the PC platform is too closed. I feel its not right that the PC should be so closed, I believe it should be more open.
I think ARM, POWER, SPARC, and MIPS (and other) architectures are more open.
Other platforms are more open with HyperTransport and Wishbone.

Comment

My next laptop will be Ivy Bridge (or possibly Haswell) based too.
I also like the idea of every driver is integrated in the kernel with no binary blobs and all devices working out-of-the-box.

But then there are other things I would like.
The microarchitecture is closed. The UltraSPARC T1 and T2 microarchitecture is open source under the OpenSPARC project. With Intel (or AMD) that is unfortunately not the case.

The x86 instruction set architecture is not open. Only AMD and Via have a license, I think Intel refuse to provide anyone a license.
I want anyone to be able to compete.

I like Intel, but I x86 and the PC platform is too closed. I feel its not right that the PC should be so closed, I believe it should be more open.
I think ARM, POWER, SPARC, and MIPS (and other) architectures are more open.
Other platforms are more open with HyperTransport and Wishbone.

The problem with other architectures is that we do not have computers powerful enough to compete with Intel/AMD. Look at ARM, I would love to buy an ARM powered notebook but even Tegra3 can barely compete with Intel Atom like the N570...

Comment

The problem with other architectures is that we do not have computers powerful enough to compete with Intel/AMD. Look at ARM, I would love to buy an ARM powered notebook but even Tegra3 can barely compete with Intel Atom like the N570...

Yes, the problem with ARM is that it is too low performance.
POWER and SPARC may be more powerful but they're mostly in servers, I don't see them in desktops or laptops these days. Also, they probably very expensive.
MIPS, I don't know.

Also the problem is with Intel being too closed with the x86 and instruction set, architecture, microarachitecture, FSB, QPI, DMI, chipsets, etc.

Comment

The x86 instruction set architecture is not open. Only AMD and Via have a license, I think Intel refuse to provide anyone a license.

Other companies wanting a licence need to pay Intel, meaning they can't compete with the companies that don't have to pay for a licence. AMD and VIA have a licence, because they also licence their technologies to Intel. Intel has patented the core of the x86 instruction set, AMD and VIA hold the patents of some later additions to it: the amd64 architecture for example.

This is why Microsoft preferred amd64 over Intel Itanium in their desktop OS: else AMD's licence to x86 would have ended in 2009, meaning Intel was the only one still around, allowing the cost of CPU's and computers to rise dramatically.
Linux users can fairly easily switch to another architecture as most of our software is open, but Windows can't drop x86 because everybody's programs use it.